Painting Faculty Members’ Research Productivity in Tehran's Public & Islamic Azad Universities with an Evaluative point of view to its Evaluation indicators

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 M. A. Information Science & Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science & Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: The production of science in each country reflects its development, and the sustainable progress of each nation is contingent upon its specific capabilities. The advancement of human, financial, economic, social, cultural, and political resources is a cornerstone of sustainable development in any country. Higher education plays a crucial role in cultivating specialized human resources required by society, equipping them with the necessary skills for their respective roles. Evaluation is a key factor that can shift education from a static state to a dynamic trajectory. Higher education and the contributions of professors are pivotal in the progress of any country. The evaluation of professors in the field of painting holds particular significance due to the valuable and substantial outputs they generate, many of which cannot be adequately identified and assessed using the standard criteria for faculty promotion. This study aims to explore the evaluation criteria and research productivity of faculty members specializing in painting at the Public and Islamic Azad universities in Tehran, as well as their perspectives on evaluation criteria.
 
Methodology: The current research is of an applied nature, specifically a descriptive survey for data collection. The scientometric approach was utilized in this research. The statistical population consisted of 30 individuals out of 61 painting professors from Public and Islamic Azad universities in Tehran between 2018 and 2021. The selection criteria included having at least an assistant professor degree, three years of teaching experience, and the willingness of participants to take part in the research. Among these 30 individuals, 23 participated, with 4 engaging in specialized interviews and 19 responding to a questionnaire. The research instrument was a researcher-developed questionnaire comprising 56 questions. 26 questions were directly derived from the regulations for faculty members' promotion in universities and higher education institutions under the Ministry of Science's supervision (Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, 2016) (explicit outputs), while 30 questions were related to significant outputs in the field of painting, either implicitly mentioned in the regulations or identified through qualitative interviews with painting experts (semi-obvious outputs). The questionnaire's content validity was confirmed by four faculty members, and its reliability, assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, was 0.765. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software.
Findings: The findings revealed that among the various types of research outputs, internal scientific research articles, promotional scientific articles, and conference articles each received the highest score of 91.3 percent. Conversely, works related to book criticism had a frequency of 17.4 percent. Foreign articles indexed in the Web of Science, participation in international research projects, and guiding bachelor's theses were the least common types of research works among professors, each scoring 21.7 percent. The results indicated that while many professors included publications in their resumes, most lacked valid foreign articles indexed in WOS and Scopus. For those who did have such articles, the average number was only about two, which is notably low for professors of this scientific caliber.
 
Among the semi-obvious outputs, showcasing works in individual internal exhibitions, displaying works in group internal exhibitions, creating artwork, and mastering a foreign language all have a 100 percent frequency. The history of membership in ethics committees in research has a 13 percent frequency. Exhibiting works in individual foreign exhibitions has a 13 percent frequency while being the editor or manager of magazines in the field of visual arts has a 14.7 percent frequency. These two have the lowest frequency among the semi-obvious outputs. According to painting professors, guides for specialized doctorate theses, showcasing works in individual foreign exhibitions, participating in international research projects, and teaching workshops are considered the most important for the promotion of professors in this field. On the other hand, book reviews, internal conference papers, thesis counseling for Bachelor's degrees, history of membership in ethics committees in research, book editing and compilation, and guidance of bachelor's theses are considered the least important.
 
According to professors, there was no significant difference between obvious and semi-obvious outputs. Ignoring artworks and exhibitions as the outputs of this field, many professors, not familiar with the latest research methods in art, avoid international trips and conferences due to financial problems and the lack of motivation among professors and officials to upgrade their scientific rank. The arrangement was the most important obstacle to the fair promotion of painting professors.
Conclusion: In general, based on the results obtained from the present research, it can be concluded that the current regulations for the promotion of professors are inadequate in fairly evaluating art professors. Structural reforms and practical measures are needed to enhance the evaluation of professors in this field.
According to the research findings, it is recommended to incorporate items endorsed by selected professors into the promotion regulations to address the lack of availability or inadequate presentation of certain outputs. Additionally, in response to concerns raised by professors regarding methodological issues in painting research, it is advised to organize skill enhancement workshops for faculty members in this field. Lastly, it is proposed that the individuals responsible for revising the promotion regulations include dedicated sections for specific disciplines like painting to ensure equitable competition and recognition within other research-oriented disciplines.

Keywords


 
ابطحی، ح.، و کاظمی، ب. (1392). بهرهوری: اصول، مبانی و روشهای اندازهگیری. تهران: فوژان.
ارشادی، م. ج‌. (1401). ارائه برنامه عملیاتی ارتقا و توسعه بهره وری در پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک). طرح پژوهشی به سفارش پژوهشکده علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک). اردیبهشت.
الوانی، م.، و احمدی، پ. (1380). طراحی الگوی جامع مدیریت عوامل مؤثر بر بهره‌وری نیروی انسانی. فصلنامه مدرس، 2(18)، 19-1. https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20120413144257-2172-199.pdf
جوزی، ز.، نورمحمدی، ح.، و نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (1401). بررسی جریان دانش از دانشگاه‌ها به‌عنوان منابع تولید علم و فناوری: مقایسه‌ای بین دانشگاه‌های ایران و 100 دانشگاه برتر جهان با به‌کارگیری سنجش استنادی میان مقالات و پروانه‌های ثبت اختراع. پژوهشنامه علمسنجی، 8 (2)، 16، 181   -202‌. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.13857.1475
حریری، ن.، و ریاحی، ع. (1392). بررسی همکاری‌های علمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران و کشورهای عضو پیمان «دی هشت». فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، 27(4)، 919-941. http://fp.ipisjournals.ir/article_12085.html
حقیقت‌جو، ر.، و رنگریز، ح. (1391). بهرهوری و تجزیه و تحلیل آن در سازمانها. تهران: نشر ترمه.
خاکی، غ. ر. (1386). مدیریت بهرهوری (تجزیه و تحلیل آن در سازمان). تهران: کوهسار.
دباغ، ر. (1390). مقایسه بهره‌وری پژوهشی با بهره‌وری کل در دانشگاه‌های منتخب دولتی ایران. پژوهشهای اقتصادی ایران، 16(47)، 104-75. https://ijer.atu.ac.ir/article_3199.html
رضایی، م. (1392). شناسایی و اعتبار سنجی شاخصهای ارزیابی و بهرهوری پژوهشی پژوهشگران ایران [پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد منتشر نشده]. دانشگاه شاهد.
ستوده، ه.، و یقطین، م. (1393). شاخص‌ها و مدل‌های سنجش بهره‌وری علمی پژوهشگران. سیاستنامه علم و فناوری، 04(1)، 47 – 62. https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1192.html
شیخی، س. (1395). اهمیت و ضرورت ارزشیابی اساتید با تأکید بردانشگاه‌های علوم‌پزشکی. کنفرانس ملی دانش و فناوری روانشناسی ایران. https://civilica.com/doc/591207
صمدی، ل. (1395). همترازسازی شاخصهای ارزیابی بهرهوری پژوهشی پژوهشگران هنر و علومپزشکی ایران [رساله دکتری منتشر نشده]. دانشگاه تهران.
صمدی، ل.، ناخدا، م.، نوروزی چاکلی، ع.، و اسدی، س. (1398). چالش‌های آیین‌نامه ارتقا اعضای هیأت علمی برای همترازسازی سنجش و ارزیابی بهره‌وری علمی پژوهشگران رشته موسیقی در ایران. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاعرسانی.9(1)، 59-84. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v9i1.75959
لطفی، م. ر. (1389). اولویت‌بندی و تعیین مهم‌ترین عوامل آموزشی مؤثر بر بهره‌وری دانشگاه‌ها به‌روش تصمیم‌گیری گروهی. فصلنامه مدیریت، 7(20)، 49-61. https://www.sid.ir/paper/151318/fa
میرزایی، ن. (1394). ارزیابی بهرهوری پژوهشی اعضای هیأت علمی گروههای علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی دانشگاههای تهران با بهکارگیری شاخصهای چندگانه [پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد منتشر نشده]. دانشگاه شاهد.
نوروزی چاکلی، ع.، آقایاری، ح.، و حسن‌زاده، م. (1390). ارزیابی پژوهشگران دانشگاه شهید بهشتی در پایگاه‌های استنادی وب‌آو‌ساینس، اسکوپوس و گوگل اسکالر بر اساس شاخص‌های اچ.، جی. و پارامتر ام. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاعرسانی، 1(1)، 135-152. https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20140507153025-9910-8.pdf
وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری (1395). آییننامه ارتقای مرتبه اعضای هیأت علمی آموزشی و پژوهشی و فناوری. تهران: دانشگاه پیام‌نور.
 
         
Abbing, H. (2002). Why are artists poor? the exceptional economy of the arts (p. 368). Netherlands, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285409691_Hans_Abbing_Why_Are_Artists_Poor
Abtahi, H., & Kazemi, B. (2013). Productivity: principles, foundations and methods of measurement. Tehran: Fujan Publishing. [In Persian].
Alghanim, S. A., & Alhamali, R. M. (2011). Research productivity among faculty members at medical and health schools in Saudi Arabia. Saudi medical journal, 32(12), 1297-1303. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51869292_Research_productivity_among_faculty_members_at_medical_and_health_schools_in_Saudi_Arabia_Prevalence_obstacles_and_associated_factors
Alwani, M., & Ahmadi, P. (2001). Designing a comprehensive model for managing factors affecting human resource productivity. Modares Quarterly, 2(18), 1-19. https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20120413144257-2172-199.pdf [In Persian].
Bookstein, A. (1995). Towards a multi-disciplinary Bradford law. Scientometrics. 30 (1), 353-361.
Brennan, A. (2019). Ten paintings that changed the world. Available from: https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/paintings-artworks-that-changed-world-a3817526.html
Dabbagh, R. (2011). The Comparison of Research and Total productivity in Iranian Public Universities. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, 16(47), 75-104. https://ijer.atu.ac.ir/article_3199.html [In Persian].
Ershadi, M.J. (2022). Presentation of the operational plan for the improvement and development of productivity in the Research Institute of Information Science and Technology of Iran (IranDoc). A Research Project Commissioned by the Research Institute of Information Science and Technology of Iran (IranDoc), (April). [In Persian].
Gilavand, A. (2016). Pathology of faculty members’ rank promotion in universities and higher education institutions affiliated to the ministry of health and medical education of the Islamic republic of Iran. Int J Med Res Health Sci, 5(9S), 25-30. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309770061_Pathology_of_Faculty_Members'_rank_Promotion_in_Universities_and_Higher_Education_Institutions_Affiliated_to_the_Ministry_of_Health_and_Medical_Education_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
Haghighatjo, R., & Rangriz, H. (2012). Productivity and its analysis in organizations. Tehran: Termeh Publishing. [In Persian].
Hariri, N., & Riahi, A. (2012). Studying the scientific cooperation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the countries that are members of the "D-eight" pact. Foreign Policy Quarterly, 27(4).919-941. http://fp.ipisjournals.ir/article_12085.html [In Persian].
Hue, T.T., Tuan, N.A., Van, L.H., Lien, L.T., Huong, D.D., Anh, L.T., Huy, N.X., & Dat, L.Q. (2022). Prioritization of factors impacting lecturer research productivity using and improved fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Sustainability.14,6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106134
Igiri, B. E., Okoduwa, S. I. R., Akabuogu, E. P., Okoduwa, U., J., Enang I. A., Idowu, O. O., Abdullahi, S., Onukak, I. E., Onuruka, C. C., Christopher, O. P., Salawu, A. O., Chris, A. O., & Onyemachi, D. I. (2021). Focused research on the challenges and productivity of researchers in Nigerian academic institutions without funding. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.727228
Jozi, Z., Nourmohammadi, H., & Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2022). Survey of Knowledge Flow from Universities as Sources of Science and Technology Production: A Comparison Between Iranian Universities and the Top 100 Universities in the World Using Citation Measurement Between Articles and Patents. Scientometrics Research Journal, 8(2), 16, 181 - 202. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.13857.1475 [In Persian].
Khaki, G. (2007). Productivity management (analysis in the organization). Tehran: Kohsar Publishing. [In Persian].
Lissoni, F., Mairesse, J., Montobbio, F., & Pezzoni, M. (2011). Scientific productivity and academic promotion: a study on French and Italian physicists. Industrial and corporate change. 20(1), 253-294. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227351806_Scientific_productivity_and_academic_promotion_a_study_on_French_and_Italian_physicists
Lotfi, M. (2010). Prioritizing and determining the most important educational factors affecting the productivity of universities by group decision-making method. Journal of Industrial Strategic Management, 7(20), 49-61. Available from: https://www.sid.ir/paper/151318/fa [In Persian].
Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (2016). Regulations for promoting the rank of members of the educational, research and technological faculty. Tehran: Payam Noor University Press. [In Persian].
Mirzaei, N. (2015). Evaluation of Research Productivity of Faculty Members at Departments of Information Science and Knowledge Studies in Tehran Universities Using Multiple Indicators [Unpublished Master's dissertation]. Shahed University. [In Persian].
Nagoba, B. S. & Mantri, S. B. (2015). Role of teachers in quality enhancement in higher education. JKIMSU, 4 (1), 179-182. https://www.jkimsu.com/jkimsu-vol4no1/JKIMSU,%20Vol.%204,%20No.%201,%20Jan-Mar%202015%20Page%20177-182.pdf
Noroozi Chakoli, A., Aghayari, H., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2011). Evaluation of indexed scientific documents of Shahid Beheshti University research institutes in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citation databases using h, g and m parameters. Library and information Science Research, 1(1), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v1i1.8543  [In Persian].
Olmos-Gómez, M. D. C., Luque-Suárez, M., Ferrara, C., & Cuevas-Rincón, J. M. (2021). Quality in Higher Education and Satisfaction among Professors and Students. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(1), 219-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11010017
Rezaei, M. (2013). The Identification and Accreditation of the Research Productivity Evaluation Indicators of Iran Researchers and Universities [Unpublished master's dissertation]. Shahed University. [In Persian].
Samadi, L. (2015). Equating of Research Productivity Evaluation Indicators of Iranian Art and Medical Researchers [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. University of Tehran. [In Persian].
Samadi, L., Nakhoda, M., Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Asadi, S. (2019). The Challenges of the Regulations for the Promotion of Faculty Members for the Equated Comparison of the Assessment and Evaluation Process of Scientific Productivity of Music Researchers in Iran. Library and Information Science Research, 9(1), 59-84. https://doi.org/10.22067/riis.v9i1.75959 [In Persian].
Sheikhi, S. (2016). The importance and necessity of evaluating professors with emphasis on medical sciences universities. [Conference Presentation]. National Conference of Psychological Science and Technology of Iran. Available from: https://civilica.com/doc/591207 [In Persian].
Sotudeh, H., & Yaghtin, M. (2014). Indicators and models for measuring researchers’ scientific productivity. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 4(1), 47-62. https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_1192.html [In Persian].
Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management. 28 (1). 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G
Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: Measure refinement and theory testing. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943901